JUDGMENT
M. Karpagavinayagam
1. Challenging the conviction imposed under Section 302 IPC by the Principal Sessions Judge, Chengalpattu, in S.C. No. 193 of 1996, Ramalingam, the appellant/accused, has filed this appeal.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is as follows:
(a) The appellant/accused is the husband of the deceased Dhanalakshmi. Twenty years ago, they got married. Four children were born out of the wedlock. Seven years prior to the occurrence, they were living in Pondicherry. At that time, the deceased Dhanalakshmi ran away with one Mani along with her second child. When the accused brought her back home, he shifted their residence to Ambattur. Again two years prior to the incident, the deceased ran away with another man, namely, Pandian. Then, the parents of the deceased intervened and made a compromise between the accused and the deceased and brought her back to her husband. Thereafter, the accused along with his wife and children came to Kolappakkam village and was residing there.
(b) On 01.04.1996, at about 07.00 a.m., P.W.3.Vaidyanathan went to the house of P.W.5 Rathinam to get an umbrella from P.W.5. At that time, P.W.3 was talking with the deceased Dhanalakshmi. On seeing that, the accused suspected that the deceased had illicit intimacy with P.W.3. Therefore, the accused beat P.W.3. P.W.3 complained it to the other witnesses. Thereafter, the other witnesses, namely, P.Ws.3 and 5 and one Ganappan went to the house of the accused and beat him. P.W.2 Maistry came there; pacified both the parties and separated them. The deceased requested P.W.2 to take her to his house, as she is afraid of the accused. Therefore, P.W.2 took the deceased and the accused along with children to his house at Nedungundram.
(c) On the next day to the day of occurrence, namely, 02.04.1996, the accused left for work and asked the deceased also to come along with him. P.W.2 told him that he alone should go for work, leaving the deceased in the house itself. But, the accused requested him to send the deceased along with him so that both can do the work and accordingly, P.W.2 allowed both the accused and the deceased to go for work, since the children were available in the house. On the way to the working field, there was a quarrel between the accused and the deceased. When the accused questioned the deceased as to why she arranged persons to beat him on the earlier day, the deceased retaliated by saying that she would again arrange the persons to kill him once for all on the same night. Getting angry over this, the accused pushed her aside on the ground. He kept his both the legs on her hands and put a stone on her chest. With the same stone, he stabbed her on the abdomen, as a result of which the deceased died. Then, the accused took the dead body of the deceased and put in on the roadside. He went to the house of P.W.1 V.A.O. at Kolamuthoor and gave a statement, giving extra-judicial confession. P.W.1 reduced the same into writing and obtained the signature from the accused. The statement is Ex.P-1. Then, he went to the scene of occurrence and found the dead body of the deceased with injuries. Thereafter, he took the accused to the police station; prepared a report Ex.P-2 and produced the same in the police station. The accused was also produced before P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police.
(d) On receipt of Exs.P-1 and P-2, P.W.16, Sub-Inspector of Police, registered a case for the offence under Section 302 IPC and prepared the printed F.I.R.Ex.P-8.
(e) On receiving the message, P.W.17, Inspector of Police, went to Otteri police station and again obtained a confessional statement from the accused, the admissible portion of which is marked as Ex.P-9. Then, the police party was taken by the accused to the scene of occurrence and the dead body was identified, P.W.17 prepared observation mahazar and rough sketch; identified the stone M.O.1, with which the accused caused injuries on the body of the deceased and recovered the same. He conducted inquest on 02.04.1996 between 04.00 P.M. and 08.30 P.M.. Ex.P-12 is the inquest report. He sent the dead body for post-mortem.
(f) P.W.14, Doctor, on receipt of post-mortem requisition, conducted post-mortem on 03.04.1996. He found seven injuries on the dead body and gave opinion in Ex.P-7, post-mortem certificate, that the deceased died of blunt injury on the abdomen and chest.
(g) P.W.17, Inspector of Police, continued the investigation and made arrangements for sending the materials for chemical examination. After completing the investigation, he filed a chargesheet against the accused for the offence under Section 302 IPC.
3. During the course of trial, on behalf of the prosecution, P.Ws.1 to 17 were examined; Exs.P-1 to P-19 and M.Os.1 to 9 were marked.
4. The accused, when questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C., would deny the offence.
5. The trial Court, on consideration of the materials available on record, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 302 IPC and convicted him thereunder. Hence, this appeal.
6. Mrs. J. Sundara Kanchani, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would take us through the entire evidence and contend that the reliability and authenticity of Ex.P-1 is doubtful, in view of the fact that P.W.1 did not observe the procedures to be followed while recording the extra-judicial confessional statement of the accused. Alternatively, it is submitted that even assuming that the case of the prosecution is true in its entirety, the incidents, as narrated in Ex.P-1, would indicate that the accused had a sudden and grave provocation and in the quarrel, the accused inflicted injuries on the deceased, which resulted in death and consequently, the accused would be entitled to get the benefit as contained in Section 300 IPC and therefore, he is liable to be convicted only for a lesser offence and not under Section 302 IPC.
7. We have heard the learned Additional Public Prosecutor; gone through the records and also considered the submissions made by the counsel for the parties.
8. At the outset, it shall be stated that the contention that the authenticity of the document Ex.P-1 is doubtful is not tenable, in view of the fact that P.W.1 has categorically stated that he prepared Ex.P-1 at his office and after finishing the recording of complaint, went to the scene of occurrence; found the dead body of the deceased with injuries; thereafter, he went to the police station along with the accused; prepared Ex.P-2 report and handed it over to the Sub-Inspector of Police, P.W.16. It is also stated by P.W.1 that he sent one copy to Tahsildar.
9. Under these circumstances, we are unable to accept the contention of the counsel for the appellant with reference to the reliability and authenticity of Ex.P-1. Consequently, it has to be held that the accused went to P.W.1, V.A.O. and made a voluntary extra-judicial confession and in pursuance of the same, P.W.1 acted according to law.
10. In regard to the submission with reference to the nature of offence, we are constrained to observe that there is some force in the said contention.
11. On going through Ex.P-1, it is clear that the deceased earlier eloped with other persons and only on the effort of the accused, the deceased was brought back and both of them lived together. One day prior to the occurrence, the accused was beaten by the witnesses, for the sake of the deceased. Next day morning, the accused took the deceased to the working field for carrying on the work. On the way to the working field, there was a quarrel. At that time, the accused asked the deceased as to why she set up persons to beat him. Then, she retaliated by saying that she would again set up persons to kill him on the same night itself. On hearing these words, the accused got provoked; took a stone available near the scene and caused injuries on the deceased.
12. Under these circumstances, there is no difficulty in holding that the occurrence took place in a sudden quarrel and the words uttered by the deceased stating that she would kill the accused by arranging some persons provoked him and then, he took a stone found nearby and caused injuries on the deceased. Therefore, the accused is liable to be convicted only for the offence under Section 304-I IPC. As such, the offence will not come under Section 302 IPC.
13. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part and the conviction against the appellant/accused under Section 302 IPC is set aside; instead, he is convicted for the offence under Section 304-I IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period seven years.